CS Jackets

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: CS Jackets

Hallo!

Moderator hat on...

Thanks lads for trying to salvage this thread back to the level of shared research and documentation, and supported opinions and inferences, that the AC Forum strives for.

Moderator hat off...

IMHO, while the Gold Standard is what research and documentation for the time and place of the unit one is portraying shows, I think perhaps the original question was more geared toward what reenacting/living history garment might would be best to add to one's closet- moreso than what actual CW Confederate uniform item was universally second most "common?"
(Muck akin to what weapon is "best" for one's second weapon purchase...)

And both are worthy of higher level discussion.

Curt

[Jeff Dugdale]

Re: CS Jackets

Tom,
Any factual book is an author's opinion to a certain extent.My comments were in no way meant to be derisory.I purchased and enjoyed your book.It's just that I come to a different conclusion than yourself.Take my last comments on the photo of the Confederate cavalrymen captured at Aldie.You state that it depicts 'so well' the phrase."no two dressed alike".I see it as a group of uniformly dressed Confederates who have been joined by local civilians.How else do you explain the woman standing to the right of the photo,next to the tall man in the dark frockcoat and light trousers?Now either the Rebel cavalry were so desperatly short of troops they were recruiting women or she was a local civilian or dignitary invited to stand in on the photo with the other civilians.In your book on page 45 you show a photo of two 'pards' one dressed in uniform,the other in civilian attire.Although you do not state it,the insinuation is that both are soldiers.I have come to the conclusion that without any evidence to go on the man in civilian clothes may well be a civilian.This is where your opinion has come into play.I used my opinion to come to a different conclusion.As for whole Brigades in uniform,there are many accounts well before the fall of 63 where this occured.
Jeff Dugdale

[JimConley]

Re: CS Jackets

Any factual book is an author's opinion to a certain extent.

Jeff,
I have to disagree with you here, also. As it pertains to a survey such as Mr. Arliskas' book, I would hardly stretch to regard his statements as opinion. And, with my experiences as a graduate in History, I can tell you that opinion does not find its way into research endeavors such as this. Rather, the process is quite similar to the Scientific Method:
1. Pinpoint a question(s) or problem(s)
2. Make educated guesses or perceptions
3. Research or experiment (this is where the educated guesses, perceptions, or opinions either show truth or fail)
4. Form conclusions based upon research and experimentation

That, of course, is a highly condensed layout of the process, but it gives the general idea. What a researcher states in his/her conclusions is not opinion, but is a direct result of what research indicates. Does that mean that other resources that may counter those conclusions should necessarily denote them as opinions? No. Personally, I find Mr. Arliskas' work to be very thorough as he includes numerous forms of support for his results, citing records, accounts, newspapers, photographs, etc. Does that mean that other references towards the subject do not exist that would not fit his conclusions? No. But that also does not mean that basing his finalizations upon the numerous references he used makes him wrong. I'm sure if the sources you are referencing were in such great a number as the ones included in his work, the book would have quite a different make-up.

I guess the best thing to do would be to agree to disagree here. You obviously feel quite strongly about your observations and I hope that you will find the time to share them with us in greater detail. I look forward to being enlightened.

[Jeff Dugdale]

Re: CS Jackets

Jim,

'With my experiences as a graduate in history I can tell you.........'

Can you now?As a lifelong historian and an author of more than 20 best selling books on World War 2 Armored units I would beg to differ.Opinion does find it's way into research endeavors....relentlessly.

'Form conclusions based upon research

In the end ,these are opinions.

'I find Mr Arliskas' work to be very thorough'

So do I.It is an excellent work.I,however have come to different conclusions.I am sure one of the aims of Tom when writing the book was to encourage debate.I do in my work.

Back to the initial post.I feel for an Eastern Confederate in mid 1863 an RD11 would be the norm.Second options are state issues.NC shell,SC frock,Georgia frock,Louisiana shell etc as these States continued to supply uniforms to their troops in the tens of thousands .But a uniform item is a must.Not civilian attire.Earlier I cited the famous photo of Confederate cavalrymen captured at Aldie.Some would say the group comprises two thirds soldiers dressed in full uniform and one third soldiers dressed in civilian clothes.Two things stand out to me.The first is that there is no mix of the two.It's either uniform or not.This doesn't seem right to me.The second is the most important.What if the people dressed in civilian clothes were just that....civilians?To me this is the more obvious answer.They were probably locals or dignitaries invited to stand in.How else do we explain the woman in the ranks.Take a close look (as you view the photo,she is standing to the right of the tall man in dark frockcoat and light trousers,about five figures from the end).This photo along with many taken at Gettysburg show no signs of civilian clothing.Unless somebody can show me a battlefield photo (mid 63)of an ANV soldier in civilian attire I'm afraid I have to stick with my 'conclusions' .How do you view these points.Especially the Aldie photograph?
I look forward to your reply and any research of your own and not Mr Arliskas's.
Jeff

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: CS Jackets

I have to agree with Curt:
It is great to see well-read and informed fellows debate a topic such as this.

I think perhaps the original question was more geared toward what reenacting/living history garment might would be best to add to one's closet- moreso than what actual CW Confederate uniform item was universally second most "common?"

And, back to the original question... If I may summarize:
I think that, for many years (especially in the early days of the authentic movement), guys were directed to purchase a depot jacket (usually CD or RD, depending upon home club's primary impression). As a result, I think most folks have one or both of these jackets.

This being the case, and given the great citations in this thread and in published works, etc., I think a good second garment would be either a homemade/commutation SB frock or a civilian coat. I think the latter is perhaps the most utilitarian for a reenactor as it allows one to portray a civilian at many pre/early war mustering-in events or it can be used as a back-up for most other events where one's primary depot jacket is not suitable.

So, if the event regs (for example) call for a CD jacket, but you only have a RD jacket and a civilian coat, the civilian coat may be suitable and will probably not throw ratios of the issue jackets out of whack as many guys have one of these already.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: CS Jackets

Hallo!

As a former profesional generator as well as consumer of research (and somewhere down in my underwear drawer, er degrees drawer, might be an undergrad degree in History with a specialization in the CW era)...

I think "opinion" can carry a negative connotation.
The process of "historical research" can borrows from the Scientific Method such as to:

Define the question
Gather information and resources (observation)
Form hypothesis
Perform experiment and collect data
Analyze data
Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
Publish results
Retest (often done by others)

IMHO, a key part of "analyze data" in quality research is to build in convictions AND mechanisms to ensure or assure that the process is objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results.
IMHO, there is nothing wrong with opinions as they often become the starting point of a hypothesis. But the key to good research is the devices
or mechanisms that look to the concepts of validity and reliability in the analysis and inference made.
And if true, can be "repeated" by others.

In my heresy, sometimes in the absence of hard and cold historical "facts," there are just informed, researched, and tested opinions coming from the best analysis and inference- which then remains proven true or false until the process generates new data and findings that prove it differently than previously held or believed.

Others' opinions, and mileage, will vary...

Curt

[DougCooper]

Re: CS Jackets

I have to agree with Curt:
It is great to see well-read and informed fellows debate a topic such as this.



And, back to the original question... If I may summarize:
I think that, for many years (especially in the early days of the authentic movement), guys were directed to purchase a depot jacket (usually CD or RD, depending upon home club's primary impression). As a result, I think most folks have one or both of these jackets.

This being the case, and given the great citations in this thread and in published works, etc., I think a good second garment would be either a homemade/commutation SB frock or a civilian coat. I think the latter is perhaps the most utilitarian for a reenactor as it allows one to portray a civilian at many pre/early war mustering-in events or it can be used as a back-up for most other events where one's primary depot jacket is not suitable.

So, if the event regs (for example) call for a CD jacket, but you only have a RD jacket and a civilian coat, the civilian coat may be suitable and will probably not throw ratios of the issue jackets out of whack as many guys have one of these already.

Agree 100% with John here.

[JimConley]

Re: CS Jackets

Can you now?As a lifelong historian and an author of more than 20 best selling books on World War 2 Armored units I would beg to differ.

Yes, I am familiar with the research and writing processes. I know plenty of people that have written well regarded and prize winning books on a number of subjects. I was taught and trained by a number of them while in college. Not to mention I have also spent countless hours in libraries reading secondary sources, digging through archives, going through literally thousands of microfilm records, and many sleepless nights of writing. All that on top of a heavy load of assigned course readings. So, please don't pretend to exalt yourself into thinking you can thwart me because your research skills are more developed than mine.

Opinion does find it's way into research endeavors....relentlessly.

Yes, I am quite aware of this. Researchers will offer new, different, or controversial interpretations to either generate new ways of thinking about a subject or to just sell books. It's a delicate tactic, to be sure, because it can either result in being constructive or hogwash. However, I do not believe that it applies here.

I,however have come to different conclusions.

Yes, so I have noted. I have also noted that aside from your interpretation of the same two photographs you continue to bring up, nothing else has really been offered. You have mentioned in each post your findings to the contrary. Where are they? Do you have something written? An article? A draft? Notes? Photocopies? Someone else's work? Anything?

I have continued to listen and be open to what you may have to offer to this point, but I remain unconvinced. Any other person with research experience would have disregarded your claims for lack of cited evidence.

I look forward to your reply and any research of your own and not Mr Arliskas's.

I hardly think that is an issue here. I am asking for elaboration on what you have found because of the claims you have made. And so what if I cited someone else's work? It is quite a thorough reference, as the one thing we have agreed upon thus far. I'll gladly withdraw any form of pretense I have expressed when you can uphold your statements by citing something other than your general perspective on the subject.

[Jeff Dugdale]

Re: CS Jackets

Jim
So.........Your'e not going to comment on the Aldie photo then?
Jeff Dugdale

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: CS Jackets

Mod Hat On:
Let's stick to the discussion at hand and try to stay away from comparing the length of our resumes. OK?

Jeff - Please remember to sign your first and last name to your posts. I recommend using the signature feature available in your user profile.


Mod Hat Off:

So.........Your'e not going to comment on the Aldie photo then?

Anyone have a link to, or copy of this photo?

On the presence of civilian attire: Jeff - Is it your assertion that a civilian coat is completely UNacceptable for mid-war ANV (e.g. "Gettysburg")? Zero, zip, zilch, nada?

[27thNCdrummer]

Re: CS Jackets

Jeff,
Early you mentioned how even during the Sharpsburg campaign the Confederate troops were wearing mainly depot jackets. Well this may not be a photo from the Gettysburg Mid-war period but let me know if you think you see some civilian coats in here. http://americanhistory.si.edu/milita...=480&hideAlt=1

[Jeff Dugdale]

Re: CS Jackets

John,
Sorry about the signature.Now to your points.You will find high resolution images of this photo in the Civil War images section of this forum,under 'High resolution selection from Confederate prisoner groups'(near bottom of first page). This group of photos appear about two thirds down this article on page one.The woman appears in the third photo of the Aldie series,(about third from left).

On the presence of civilian attire: Jeff - Is it your assertion that a civilian coat is completely UNacceptable for mid-war ANV (e.g. "Gettysburg")? Zero, zip, zilch, nada?

Yes.I have seen no evidence to the contrary.

Jeff Dugdale

[Jeff Dugdale]

Re: CS Jackets

Andrew,
This photo is thought to have been taken in Frederick during the Maryland Campaign.Frustratingly it is too blurred to reveal any details.
Jeff Dugdale

[GarrettG1993]

Re: CS Jackets

I couldn't confirm seeing any civilian type coats. However, the guy in the brown jacket, standing next to the man who is looking at the photographer
(middle of the bottom), could be wearing one. There may be some in the front of the column, but there is too much shaddow to tell for certain. Lots of frocks though, and felt is definately the most common form of head gear in that picture. But, nearly all the dead Confederates in the Sharpsburg post-battle pictures appear to be wearing issue jackets, predominately Commulation and RD's.


Garrett Glover
1st Texas Light Artillery
Battery K

[Jeff Dugdale]

Re: CS Jackets

Jim,
A few things here for you Jim before I fly off to Sorrento, Italy for 10 days!

Pertaining to ANV only....


Antietam photos....No civilian attire
Fredericksburg (bridge ) photo...Mainly RD11s
Gettysburg photos....No civilian attire,mainly RD11s

On 25th Sept 1862 Quartermaster Myers stated that 20,000 suits of clothing were to be shipped the next day to Lee's Army.


53 Georgia.... May 20/21 1863 recieved enough uniforms to give each man a new outfit.

26 NC ....10 days before Gettysburg campaign recieved fresh uniforms for ENTIRE regiment (800 men).The jackets were 'all alike and of the same gray'.

Kershaw's Brigade issued 'depot' roundabouts after Seven Days battles.Another issue in the Fall comprised Government pants and jackets.

16 Mississippi...recieved uniforms of English kersey shortly after Chancellorsville.

Texas Brigade....Issued large quantities of new clothing in March/April 1863

4 NC .(500 strong) ...issued on 4th April 1863 the following vast quantity of clothing (NC issue)...2000 jackets,500 drawers,2030 pants,1980 pairs shoes.The excess was placed in storage.

1,12,13,14 SC ...Early 1863 issued gray frocks and roundabouts as well as 468 caps

1 Maryland....April 1863,issued 'Richmond' jackets and gray caps

Stonewall Brigade....Entire Brigade issued uniforms of 'English cloth'in May 1863

North Carolinas' Ira Foster was able to report on 25th March 1863 that the following uniform items had been shipped to NC troops.....4556 coats,5288 pants,5744 pairs shoes etc.He also stated that he still had on hand 7272 coats,9257 pants etc

In June 1863 Pickett's regiments reported their 'appearance' to Division HQ.The descriptions of uniforms varied from bad to tolerable to good in the various regiments.All regiments,however reported their 'Military appearance' to be good.There is no mention of a lack of uniforms or civilian clothes.Surely if civilian attire was present the entire Division would not have classed itself as 'Military in appearance',would it?


Jeff Dugdale